Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council's handling of the installation of a dropped kerb. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to maintain an up-to-date list of approved contractors for installing dropped kerbs. He says contractors on the Council's approved list asked for cash payments and demanded payment before the Council inspected the completed work.
2. Mr X says he posted feedback on a review website, but the Council asked the website to remove it, even though the Council partially upheld his complaint. Mr X says the situation caused him stress, inconvenience, and a loss of time and money. He also says the quality of the workmanship was poor.
3. Mr X wants the Council to provide compensation for what he experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council provided Mr X with a list of approved contractors for installing a dropped kerb. Mr X was dissatisfied with the list. The Council explained he could use a different contractor, provided they proved they met the Council’s requirements before carrying out any work. Any injustice arising from this matter is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X complained contractors on the Council’s approved list asked for cash payments and requested payment before the Council had inspected the completed work. The Council explained, although some goods and services for disabled people are exempt from Value Added Tax (VAT), this exemption does not apply to dropped kerb crossings. The Council told Mr X it did not tolerate or support these practices and agreed to raise these concerns directly with the contractors. It also committed to updating its website and guidance on dropped kerbs to provide greater clarity for residents. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.
9. Mr X complained about the quality of the work. The Council said it inspected the dropped kerb the day after installation and found the work met the required standards. The Council also transferred the permit fee to the new contractor at no extra cost to Mr X. As the work met the relevant technical standards and Mr X did not incur any extra permit costs, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
10. The Council accepted it sent correspondence to Mr X using the wrong name and apologised for this error. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.
11. Mr X complained the Council asked an online review platform to remove his feedback. Councils are entitled to challenge comments they consider inaccurate or misleading. I do not consider the Council’s actions caused Mr X a significant injustice that would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman